Forum

by **Night Strike** on Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:50 pm

El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

That seems way too small. My signature is relatively simple and it's still 225kb.

by **Metsfanmax** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:41 pm

Night Strike wrote:
El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

That seems way too small. My signature is relatively simple and it's still 225kb.

One possible solution is that the file size should be determined by your desired dimensions. Create a typical JPEG of the maximum size you want (say, 600 x 400) and see what size it is. Not ideal, but it's a start.

by **BGtheBrain** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:42 pm

Mines fairly basic and 82.3 KB (84,276 bytes)

by **EBConquer** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:48 pm

i agree. 100k is WAY too small. if we were to pose a limit like that i'd say 300k. that way we can have an alpha channel (png) to blend w/ any colored background and make it look a touch more sexy.

personally, i don't care about the k weight as my internet connection is dynamite. also, when you see somebody's sig... it's already in your cache so no worries anymore if you see it again because it's already loaded.

if you guys want to get nasty, how about this: word of mouth saying "hey, you can't go over 300k" but limit it to the forums.

that way, when somebody visits your wall, and you want a cool video sig, people can see it. but the tricky 'you have to know' part would be a button you can click when you post in the forum to say "do not attach signature" vs. vice versa as it is now.

that way people that aren't paying attention will get warned to pay attention more in the future.

limiting sigs as a whole i feel is sort of ridiculous, especially w/ all the jabber-jaw freemiums who add nothing to the game-side of the site besides really good chatter.... you know who you are. :mrgreen:

also, you guys know that these video sigs aren't 'hosted' on CC but on other sites. therefore, CC is no slower than it always was. the exception being for those who haven't run across a video sig that they haven't seen before. (unless they delete their cache of course.)

EDIT:
many typos. :lol:

that's my 1 cent.

by **greenoaks** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:57 pm

do not limit sigs because some freeloaders have a problem with load time.

by **Maugena** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:56 pm

300kB sounds reasonable.

by **EBConquer** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:12 pm

Thanks and yes, 300k is a reasonable limit w/ sanctions to the forums only as i said in my previous post.

i think a blanket limit wouldn't be the best move here.

baby steps. it's the forums we're concerned about here right? most of the paying people w/ a +300k sig hardly even visit the forums so let's keep them out of this.

by **greenoaks** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Maugena wrote:300kB sounds reasonable.

so does paying $25 for membership

by **codierose** on Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:38 pm

greenoaks wrote:do not limit sigs because some freeloaders have a problem with load time.

cool

by **agentcom** on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:39 pm

EBConquer wrote:that way, when somebody visits your wall, and you want a cool video sig, people can see it. but the tricky 'you have to know' part would be a button you can click when you post in the forum to say "do not attach signature" vs. vice versa as it is now.

You already have the option of not attaching sigs. For example, see the lack of sig below.

by **thenobodies80** on Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:51 pm

First of all let me say that I'm fine also with 300kb as limit, but....

Night Strike wrote:
El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

That seems way too small. My signature is relatively simple and it's still 225kb.

Your signature can be compressed without any visible loss with some free tools like PNGGauntlet (there are many others, just google it

)

Your current sig is 255kb:

the compressed version I did in about 20 seconds is 80kb:

Now tell me if you can see the difference

The weak point is that not everyone is aware about these compression tools, so if you want to go with 300kb I'm fine with it! O:)

Nobodies

by **chapcrap** on Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:03 pm

Ok, the real issue is sigs that take up MB, not our small kb signatures. So, you can even go higher than 300, but we don't need sigs this big:

by **Dukasaur** on Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:12 am

It's really gotten out of hand. My February bandwidth use on my laptop was 910 MB, and 95% of what I use my laptop for is Conquer Club. That's not counting the days when I managed to get home and use my home computer.

Now, I have no idea how much of that is from legitimate graphics like maps, and how much of it is from pointless bullshit on the forums, but definitely something needs to be done.

by **spiesr** on Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:19 pm

MERGED: rediculously large filesize sigs..

by **rdsrds2120** on Thu May 02, 2013 2:22 pm

So this is what I found:
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... 5#p8460795

which makes me think that there's no good way to enforce this through technical means, so we can adopt a guideline and enforce it via moderation if we think this is a big enough issue (i.e., we'd have to have people flag signatures that were too big). So now, is there a consensus on what the max signature filesize should be?

BMO